By signing up, you agree to the Code of Conduct, which applies to all online and in-person spaces managed by the Public Lab community and non-profit. You also agree to our Privacy Policy.

As an open source community, we believe in open licensing of content so that other members of the community can leverage your work legally -- with attribution, of course. By joining the Public Lab site, you agree to release the content you post here under a Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike license, and the hardware designs you post under the CERN Open Hardware License 1.1 (full text). This has the added benefit that others must share their improvements in turn with you.

Jeff Falk's Analysis

Jeff starts by noting that wind, humidity, and the differing reflectance of particles are not accounted for by the Dylos, Still, across sites where monitors are up and downwind from a pollution site, the measures will share the same weather effects. The Speck particulate monitor includes a humidity sensor, probably for this very reason.

In his final analysis, Jeff uses only dates where the wind was blowing away from the AOC sand facility, ignores high humidity days (80% or above), and does an analysis with the remaining data. He finds that:
"of the 57 days with wind condition and humidity appropriate, 3.5% show possible exceedances of the EPA PM2.5 standard on a 24 hour basis, 37% show possible exceedances of this standard on an average hourly basis, and 51% have at least one hour which possibly exceeds this standard."

He also notes that it is clear that the DNR is not following best monitoring practices and all but admits it in their report. Pretty damning, and backed up by data!

7 Comments

The graph is wonderful and would be very informative if one could be confident of the story it tells. In all cases of use of particle counters one has to ask how the process gets from counts to concentrations. The methodology used here is quite questionable and no attempt has been made to validate it. In addition there is the question of the appropriateness of comparing 10 minute counts (translated into concentrations) to epa standards that are 24 hour averages and/or yearly averages. (Actually they are more complex than even this.) I applaud this citizen attempt and say this as hopefully constructive and informative criticism.

As I understand it PM2.5 implies an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns, straight forward with no "mean" involved. The "mean" enters with the epa approved monitoring equipment which use a "cyclone" with a 50% cut point of 2.5 microns. This is the point at which 50% of the particulate mass captured will be below 2.5 microns and 50% above. Similar statements would apply to PM10.

I've been operating on the assumption that the EPA/ISO standard = PM2.5. I guess this is an etymology question. which came first: PM2.5 or the EPA/ISO standard PM2.5? the standard defines PM2.5 particulates by the 50% cutoff point. If we're measuring PM2.5 I've been assuming that we're getting an equivalent to this filtration standard, not a measurement of just 2.5µ particles.

Let's try again. Gravimetric monitors capture particles and allow a weight of those captured to be determined. The distribution of aerodynamic diameters of the particles captured will depend upon the particulate in the air being sampled and the design of the monitor. I've seen an explanation of a 50% cutoff point of 2.5 microns as a particulate with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns has a 50% probability of being captured. The probability of capture decreases as the aerodynamic diameter increases and the probability of capture increases as the aerodynamic diameter decreases. So a epa approved PM2.5 monitor output will be capable of including some particulate with aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 microns as well as less than 2.5 microns. The actual distribution will depend on what is in the air sampled. How any of this is actually determined and put into the design is beyond me, but it has to do with the design of the cyclone I believe.